facets of conscientiousness and their differential relationships...

This is a repository copy of Facets of conscientiousness and their differential relationships with cognitive ability factors.

White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/112389/

Version: Accepted Version

Article:

Rikoon, Samuel, Brenneman, Meghan, Kim, Lisa orcid.org/0000-0001-9724-2396 et al. (4 more authors) (2016) Facets of conscientiousness and their differential relationships with cognitive ability factors. Journal of Research in Personality. pp. 22-34. ISSN 0092-6566

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.01.002

[email protected]://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/

Reuse

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

Takedown

If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.

RUNNING HEAD: CONSCIENTIOUSNESS FACETS AND COGNITIVE ABILITY 1

Facets of Conscientiousness and their Differential Relationships with Cognitive Ability Factors

Samuel H. Rikoon & Meghan Brenneman

Educational Testing Service

Lisa E. Kim

University of Sydney

Lale Khorramdel

Educational Testing Service

Carolyn MacCann

University of Sydney

Jeremy Burrus

Richard D. Roberts

Professional Examination Service

To be published as: Rikoon, S. H., Brenneman, M., Kim, L. E., Khorramdel, L., MacCann, C., Burrus, J., & Roberts, R. D. (2016). Facets of Conscientiousness and their Differential Relationships with Cognitive Ability Factors. Journal of Research in Personality. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2016.01.002

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Elizabeth Coppola for her assistance in copyediting and preparing the final draft of this article. This research was supported in part by U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) Contract W91WAW-07-C-0025 to the Educational Testing Service (ETS). All statements expressed in this article are the authors’ and do not reflect the official opinions or policies of the U.S. government, ARI, ETS, or Professional Examination Service. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the first author at [email protected].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.01.002

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS FACETS AND COGNITIVE ABILITY 2

Abstract

This study examined relationships between conscientiousness facets and both broad

factors of cognitive ability and collegiate GPA. Students responded to 117 Conscientiousness

items and 15 cognitive tests demarcating fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, quantitative

reasoning, visual processing, and broad retrieval ability. Confirmatory factor analysis replicated

the eight-factor model found in MacCann, Duckworth, and Roberts (2009). Conscientiousness

facet correlations with Cognitive Ability and GPA revealed that Cautiousness exhibited the

highest correlation with Cognitive Ability, while Industriousness showed the strongest

relationship with GPA. Procrastination Refrainment was the only facet negatively related to

Cognitive Ability. Implications of these results are discussed in light of previous research and the

potentially moderating effect of high- versus low-stakes testing on the relationship between

conscientiousness and cognitive ability.

Keywords: academic success, conscientiousness, facet-structure, intelligence, cognitive ability,

personality, Intelligence Compensation Theory


Facets of Conscientiousness and their Differential Relationships with Cognitive Ability Factors

There is an established literature showing that cognitive ability (intelligence) and

Conscientiousness represent two of the strongest psycho-educational predictors of performance

both at school and on the job (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Poropat, 2009; Schmidt & Hunter,

1998). However, there is only limited research examining the relationship between cognitive

ability and Conscientiousness, and none (to our knowledge) considering lower-order constructs

found in both cognitive ability and personality models. A complete investigation of the relative

roles of Conscientiousness and cognitive abilities in predicting performance should examine how

the facets of Conscientiousness are associated with the broad second-stratum factors of cognitive

ability. This is the goal of the current study, which examines the associations of the eight-facet

Conscientiousness model of MacCann, Duckworth, and Roberts (2009) with five second-stratum

cognitive abilities from Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities (McGrew,

2009).

The Elements of Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness emerged as a distinct factor in early research based on the lexical

hypothesis, which states that important differences between people are encoded in single-word

trait terms such that factor analysis of trait adjectives will uncover personality structures (e.g.,

Goldberg, 1990). While researchers agree that Conscientiousness is one of five or six broad

domains of personality, there is considerable divergence of opinion on how many distinct facets

it comprises. Different models variously propose that Conscientiousness consists of anywhere

from two to eight facets (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007; Lee

& Ashton, 2004; MacCann et al., 2009; Peabody & de Raad, 2002; Roberts, Chernyshenko,

Stark, & Goldberg, 2005; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999). This precise delineation of facets is


important because different facets of Conscientiousness show differential relationships to other

variables, including valued life outcomes such as job performance and academic achievement

(e.g., Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford, 2013; Luciano, Wainwright, Wright, &

Martin, 2006; MacCann et al., 2009). Whether a link between Conscientiousness and outcomes

is found may thus depend on which facets of Conscientiousness are considered. Moreover,

different facets of Conscientiousness may show differential relationships with cognitive ability,

broadly defined. For example, Luciano et al. (2006) found that the Dutifulness and Competence

facets of the NEO-PI-R were significantly associated with cognitive ability, whereas the other

four were not. The degree of association the facets share with cognitive ability is also important,

as this affects the interpretation of the conscientiousness/outcome relationships, particularly for

outcomes such as job performance and academic achievement that are known to relate to

cognitive ability. That is, some facets of Conscientiousness may show incremental prediction

over cognitive ability, whereas others may not.

The Elements of Cognitive Ability

The most widely accepted psychological theory of cognitive ability is CHC theory (e.g.,

Roberts & Lipnevich, 2011). This model is derived from the commonalities among Carroll’s

(1993) three-stratum model and the Theory of Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence (Gf/Gc theory).

Carroll’s (1993) model was derived from re-analysis of nearly 500 data sets, and proposed three

levels of abstraction at which cognitive ability should be considered. Stratum I consists of

primary mental abilities (PMAs), which are very specific. For example, general sequential

reasoning, inductive reasoning, reading comprehension, and spelling ability are PMAs. Stratum

II consists of broader groupings of ability. For example, fluid intelligence (Gf; fluid reasoning)

encompasses the PMAs of general sequential reasoning and inductive reasoning (as well as other


PMAs), and crystallized intelligence (Gc; acculturated knowledge) encompasses the PMAs of

reading comprehension and spelling ability (as well as other PMAs).

Carroll (1993) proposed eight of these second-stratum factors. Stratum III consists of

general intelligence (g), which encompasses all eight of the second-stratum factors. In its most

recent conceptualization, CHC theory consists of ten Stratum II cognitive ability factors, with a

further six to seven factors that are still tentatively defined (e.g., McGrew, 2009; MacCann,

Joseph, Newman, & Roberts, 2014). Both exploratory and confirmatory factor methodologies

also support this structural model (e.g., Roberts, Goff, Anjoul, Kyllonen, Pallier, & Stankov,

2000). In this study, we will focus on five of these broad factors: crystallized ability (Gc), fluid

ability (Gf), quantitative reasoning (Gq), retrieval ability (Gr), and visual-spatial ability (Gv).

The Relationship between Conscientiousness and Cognitive Ability

Recent work has predominantly found either no relationship or a negative relationship

between cognitive ability and Conscientiousness. Table 1 summarizes 14 such papers examining

the relationship between conscientiousness and cognitive ability published since 1997. These

include two meta-analyses (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; von Stumm, Hell, & Chamorro-

Premuzic, 2011). In order to quantitatively summarize the overall relationship found in the

literature between Conscientiousness and cognitive ability, we aggregated the previously

reported correlation coefficients displayed in Table 1 using the Hunter and Schmidt (2004)

random-effects method.1 Two trends were apparent. First, the mean sample-weighted correlation

between cognitive ability and Conscientiousness was very small and negative (-.07) with 95%

credibility interval lower and upper bounds of -0.14 and -0.01, respectively. A chi-square test of

homogeneity indicated there was considerable variation in effect sizes overall, χ2(13) =161.17, p

1 To avoid redundancy, this calculation omits results from the two prior meta-analyses Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; von Stumm, Hell, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011).


from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg et al., 2006). The eight facets

identified included Industriousness, Perfectionism, Tidiness, Procrastination Refrainment,

Control, Caution, Task Planning, and Perseverance.

We had two supplementary objectives in this work beyond examining associations

between facets of both Conscientiousness and Cognitive Ability. First, we tested the fit of the

eight-factor structure of Conscientiousness identified by MacCann et al. (2009) in a larger, older,

and less range-restricted (in terms of both age and socioeconomic status) sample than that used

to develop the model originally. In order to provide discriminant validity evidence for the eight-

factor structure in the current sample, we also considered associations between the eight

Conscientiousness facets and the other four major domains of personality (Agreeableness,

Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness). Second, we considered the differential prediction of

academic achievement by the different Conscientiousness facets. A recent comprehensive meta-

analysis of the relationship between personality factors and job performance demonstrated that

different facets of Conscientiousness were differentially predictive of job performance (Judge et

al., 2013). Specifically, the Achievement Striving facets showed a corrected correlation more

than double that of the Order facet (.23 versus .11). Researchers predicting academic

achievement using facets of Conscientiousness have reported similarly variant findings.

Paunonen and Ashton (1991) found that GPA correlated at .26 with Achievement Striving but -

.02 with Order. MacCann et al. (2009) found that the relationship of academic honors with

Conscientiousness was more than six times stronger for the Industriousness facet than for

Tidiness (ordering of one’s possessions, conceptually similar to Order). We expected this type of

finding would be replicated in the current study when considering relationships between facets of

Conscientiousness and university grades.


Summary of Hypotheses

The current study entailed four hypotheses. First, the eight-factor structure of

Conscientiousness would generalize from the high school sample used in MacCann et al. (2009)

to the more diverse college sample employed in the current study in terms of exhibiting close fit

to the data. Second, associations between Conscientiousness and general Cognitive Ability

would differ across Conscientiousness facets. Third, associations between Conscientiousness and

Cognitive Ability would differ across different group factors of Cognitive Ability. Fourth, the

facets of Conscientiousness would show differential levels of association with college GPA,

where the strongest relationship was expected between Industriousness and GPA and the weakest

expected between Tidiness and GPA.

Method

Participants

The sample was composed of 722 students (59% female) currently attending either a two-

year college or four-year university in the United States. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 59

(M = 21.62, SD = 5.95). Approximately 64% of the students were Caucasian, 16% African

American, 10% Hispanic, and 4% Asian. Four percent identified nonspecifically as multiracial.

Fourteen institutions were involved in the study, located across all major geographic regions of

the country (Northeast, Midwest, South, & West). Among two-year college students, 49% were

in their first year, and 46% were in their second year or beyond. Among four-year university

students, 26% were in their first year, 23% were in their second year, 24% were in their third

year, and 27% were in their fourth year or beyond. Although research concerning different

aspects of this dataset have been reported in previous publications (MacCann, Fogarty, &


Roberts, 2012; MacCann, Fogarty, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2011; MacCann et al., 2014; MacCann &

Roberts, 2013), none have addressed the research questions posed in the current study.

Measures

Conscientiousness. Students in the current study responded to essentially the same set of

computer-administered Conscientiousness items (113 of the original 117) selected from the IPIP

(Goldberg et al., 2006) as did those who participated in the original study (MacCann et al.,

2009). Students rated each item on a 5-point rating scale ranging from “Not at all like me” to

“Very much like me.” Since our objective was to test the replication of a previously-found latent

structure underlying a subset of these items, the current study targeted the 66 items overlapping

with those incorporated in the confirmatory analyses reported by MacCann et al. (2009).

Cognitive ability. Responses to a battery of fifteen cognitive ability tests were gathered

to assess the following five dimensions of cognitive ability: 1) Crystallized Ability (Gc); 2) Fluid

Ability (Gf), 3) Quantitative Reasoning (Gq); 4) Retrieval Ability (Glr), and 5) Visual-Spatial

Ability (Gv). Table 2 provides a detailed description of each subtest, as well as the broad

cognitive ability that each subtest defines. All of the cognitive ability tests were timed, and

presented in either multiple-choice or constructed-response formats (where the test-taker was not

given any response options but had to generate an answer from scratch). If respondents did not

complete a particular test within the confines of the time limit, they were taken directly to the

next test and the remaining unanswered responses were scored as incorrect.

Academic achievement. Grade point average (GPA) on a 4.0 scale was self-reported by

85% (n = 426) of students in the sample enrolled in a four-year university. GPA was not reported

by students from two-year colleges.


Procedure

Data collection. A link to a computerized assessment battery including all instruments

described above was emailed to all participants, who were free to complete the items at a time of

their choosing. All test items, instructions, and administration protocols were approved by an

institutional review board and content fairness review process. All data was collected from

participants over a one month period. Participants were paid a small cash incentive for their

participation.

Confirmatory analysis. Exploratory factor analysis was not conducted here given our

goal of replicating a previously determined measurement structure for the major facets of

Conscientiousness (MacCann et al., 2009). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted

using LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog, & Sörbom, 2006), employing diagonally weighted least squares

estimation using polychoric correlations and asymptotic covariances as input. The structural

model tested in the current study is identical to the originally confirmed facet structure but for

the omission of two (3%) of the 68 original items due to those items (“I do unexpected things,”

and “I remain calm under pressure”) not having been collected from the current sample. Close fit

to the data was considered to be indicated by values of the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .95,

Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) < .06, and an upper 90% confidence limit

for RMSEA < .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

In the interest of determining whether the eight identified facets of Conscientiousness

accounted for substantial proportions of item response variance over and above general

Conscientiousness, we also estimated a bifactor model inclusive of all eight facets and a general

factor (Brunner, Nagy, & Wilhem, 2012; Chen, Hayes, Carver, Laurenceau, & Zhang, 2012). In

this model, each item was specified to load on both the general factor and its parent facet, with


all latent factors specified as orthogonal to one another to assess their independent contribution

toward accounting for item-level variance.

To the extent feasible given our dataset, it was also important to consider at least one

alternative structure for Conscientiousness hypothesized in the extant literature. The six-facet

structure implemented in the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) seemed ideal for such an

exploratory comparison to our eight-facet model given the conceptual similarity between the two

and the former’s widespread adoption in the field (e.g., De Fruyt, De Bolle, McCrae,

Terracciano, & Costa; 2009; McCrae, 2002). Four of the facets in the NEO-PI-R

conceptualization could be considered to have close correspondence with four of the facets in our

model. More specifically, the NEO-PI-R facets Competence, Achievement Striving, Dutifulness,

and Deliberation were taken to be analogous to our Industriousness, Perfectionism, Control, and

Cautiousness facets, respectively. The remaining two NEO-PI-R facets, Order and Self-

Discipline, were taken to represent constructs each split into two more domain-specific

components in our eight-facet model. In our estimated six-facet representation of the NEO-PI-R

model, Order included items originally specified to load on our model’s Tidiness (i.e. ordering

possessions) and Task Planning (i.e. ordering time or tasks) factors, while Self-Discipline

included items originally specified to load on our Procrastination Refrainment (i.e. discipline in

starting) and Perseverance (i.e. discipline in continuing) factors.

Reliability, scoring, and relationships with concurrent measures. Internal consistency

was calculated for each facet by way of Cronbach’s alpha (α), with minimal criteria for

interpretation set at α > .70. Each factor in the current sample was scored by a sum total of its

constituent item responses which was then standardized to a T score distribution (M = 50, SD =

10) to ease interpretation. Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated both between


factor scores (Table 4) and to evaluate relationships between the facets of Conscientiousness

with GPA and cognitive abilities (Table 5).

Incremental validity. Given a natural interest in studies of this type in examining the

unique contribution of the focal variables relative to others in predicting student outcomes, we

conducted analyses of incremental validity to supplement the work described above. Hierarchical

regressions were estimated to assess the unique ability of Conscientiousness facets to predict

collegiate GPA above and beyond general cognitive ability. First, eight models were run (one for

each facet of Conscientiousness) entering general cognitive ability as a predictor in the first step,

a single facet of conscientiousness in a second step, and the interaction between general

cognitive ability and the given facet of Conscientiousness in a third step. The third step

represented a test of whether the relationship between the Conscientiousness facet under

investigation and collegiate GPA varied significantly dependent on student cognitive ability

level. Second, a hierarchical regression was estimated containing with general Cognitive Ability

entered in the first step and general Conscientiousness in the second step. Third, a similar model

was run containing general cognitive ability in the first step and all Conscientiousness facets in a

second step. The final two analyses allowed us to compare the incremental R2 between models

where facets were entered individually versus using the broad Conscientiousness score.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

An eight-factor correlated-traits model (Satorra-Bentler χ2 = 7,022, df = 2,051)

incorporating all 66 items exhibited acceptably close fit to the data (CFI = .952, RMSEA = .058

with 90% CI = .057-.059). As in the previous study (MacCann et al., 2009), for comparison a

one-factor model was also estimated hypothesizing a single overarching Conscientiousness


factor (Satorra-Bentler χ2 = 13,998, df = 2,079). This model failed to exhibit acceptable fit based

both on the above fit indices (CFI = .884, RMSEA = .089 with 90% CI = .088-.091) and the AIC

for the one-factor model (14,262) nearly doubling that of the eight-factor model (7,342). Table 3

presents standardized factor loadings for the two models described above. Six items (9%) in the

current sample failed to load saliently (i.e., standardized loading < .30), three of which had been

hypothesized to load on Perfectionism. These were retained in the scoring of each factor for two

reasons. First, removing them would have had a practically negligible impact on reliability

estimates. Second, one goal of the current study was to maintain as much consistency as possible

between constructs in the current study versus the previous work reported by MacCann et al.

(2009).

A bifactor model (Satorra-Bentler χ2 = 6,454, df = 2,013) fit the data acceptably well

(CFI = .957, RMSEA = .055 with 90% CI = .054-.057) and demonstrated clearly improved fit

over the one-factor model (which fit the data poorly). This suggested that the extraction of facets

accounted for significant variance over and above the general factor. We averaged the squared

standardized item loadings within each factor of the bifactor model as an indication of the

proportion of item variance explained by each facet versus the general Conscientiousness factor.

This process revealed that each facet explained between 10% (Industriousness) and 22%

(Control) of its constituent items’ variance on average above and beyond the general factor,

which accounted for approximately 24% of response variance on average across all items.

An alternative six-facet structure (Satorra-Bentler χ2 = 9637, df = 2,064; CFI = .926,

RMSEA = .071 with 90% CI = .070-.073) conceptually aligned with the NEO-PI-R (combining

Tidiness and Task Planning to form a single Order factor, and combining Procrastination

Refrainment and Perseverance to form a single Self-Discipline factor) showed a worse fit to the


data than our targeted eight-facet model. This indicated that the eight-facet specification

provided significant explanatory power above and beyond the six-facet model. It is crucial to

emphasize that this six-facet comparison model could not represent a true test of the NEO-PI-R

conceptualization since our item pool was specifically selected to represent the eight-factor

model currently under investigation (MacCann et al., 2009). That is, while it was possible to

conduct an exploratory exercise specifying a six-facet alternative to our eight-facet model

approximating the structure of Conscientiousness assessed by the NEO-PI-R, the fact that our

eight-facet model evidenced a closer fit to the data should not be taken as evidence against the

NEO-PI-R structure given item-level differences between that instrument and ours.

Conscientiousness facets and the Big Five personality domains

Table 4 presents reliability estimates for each facet of Conscientiousness, all reaching

acceptable levels with a range from .74 to .85. Correlations between facets are also shown, with

all but one (i.e., that between Control and Perfectionism; r = -.02, p = .64) exhibiting statistically

significant, moderately strong association between dimensions. Significant factor correlations

ranged from .21 (between perseverance and perfectionism) to .68 (between Task Planning and

Industriousness), with M = .45 (SD = .12).

Relationships between Conscientiousness facets and broad measures of the Big Five

personality factors ranged from -.65 (between Perseverance and Neuroticism) to .81 (between

Industriousness and broad Conscientiousness), with their absolute values having M = .44 (SD =

.23). Generally, broad Conscientiousness related most strongly to its major facets (M = .71) than

did other broad measures of the Big Five, with Extraversion showing the weakest association on

average (M = .21) across all of its significant facet relationships. All facets of Conscientiousness

demonstrated statistically significant associations with at least two of the four broad personality


factors apart from Conscientiousness itself, with each of these four constructs significantly

related to a minimum of five facets.

Conscientiousness facets and collegiate GPA. To test the hypothesis that the

Industriousness facet had the strongest relationship (and Tidiness the weakest relationship) with

GPA compared to other facets, we compared these relationships using Steiger’s z test for

dependent correlations (Lee & Preacher, 2013; Steiger, 1980) applied to the subsample of 426

students with valid collegiate GPA data. As reported in Table 5, in addition to having the largest

estimated value the correlation between Industriousness and collegiate GPA (r = .28, p < .01)

was significantly different from the correlations between five of the other seven facets of

Conscientiousness and GPA (|z| = 2.14 to 4.00, all p < .05). The two exceptions were Control (z

= 0.84, p > .05) and Procrastination refrainment (z = 1.70, p > .05). The correlation between

Tidiness and GPA (r = .08, p >.05) was significantly different from the relationships between

four of the other seven facets of Conscientiousness and GPA (|z| = 2.11 to 4.00, all p < .05). The

three exceptions were Perfectionism (z = -1.45, p > .05), Cautiousness (z = -1.12, p > .05), and

Task Planning (z = -1.65, p > .05). We also tested whether the correlation between General

Conscientiousness and GPA (r = .26, p < .05) was significantly different from those between the

facets of Conscientiousness and GPA. Indeed, this was true for six of the eight facets (|z| = 2.00

to 7.48, p < .05), the two exceptions being Industriousness (z = -0.91, p > .05), and Cautiousness

(z = -1.69, p > .05). These results were taken to indicate that the relationship between domain-

level Conscientiousness and collegiate GPA varied substantially at the facet level.

Conscientiousness facets and Cognitive Ability

Examining associations between facets of Conscientiousness and Cognitive Ability,

Tidiness and Task Planning displayed zero and only one (respectively) significant relationship


with the six cognitive domains assessed, while all other facets of Conscientiousness showed

significant (though typically weak in magnitude) associations with both general Cognitive

Ability and at least two of its specific domains. A slight negative relationship was observed

between scores on Procrastination Refrainment and Cognitive Ability, with those more likely to

procrastinate (i.e., lower refrainment scores) also more likely (in all but one domain) to score

higher on the cognitive measures. Significant correlations between the facets of

Conscientiousness and specific cognitive ability factors ranged from -.13 (between

Procrastination Refrainment and Fluid Ability) to .22 (between Cautiousness and Crystallized

Intelligence), with absolute values (indicative of relationship strength irrespective of direction)

across all relationships demonstrating M = .12 (SD = .03). The reader is referred to Appendix A

for a comprehensive correlation matrix inclusive of all variables employed in the current study.

Incremental validity

Table 6 presents hierarchical regression analyses predicting collegiate GPA using both

facets of Conscientiousness and General Cognitive Ability. As can be seen reviewing the second

step of these models, each Conscientiousness facet was significantly predictive of collegiate

GPA above and beyond General Cognitive Ability. Also notable was that General

Conscientiousness was as strongly predictive of GPA as General Cognitive Ability. Furthermore,

when all Conscientiousness facets were entered in Step 2, this predicted collegiate GPA above

and beyond General Cognitive Ability and accounted for a greater proportion of variance in GPA

(ΔR2 = .12), than when General Conscientiousness was entered as a single score (ΔR2 = .06).

To test whether the association between Conscientiousness facets and collegiate GPA

changed depending on a student’s level of cognitive ability, an interaction between each of the

Conscientiousness facets and General Cognitive Ability was computed and entered as the third


step in our hierarchical regression models. As shown in Table 6, the interaction term was

statistically significant for only two of the eight facets (Tidiness and Task Planning). Across both

the remaining six facets and General Conscientiousness, we found no evidence to support the

notion that the relationship between Conscientiousness levels and collegiate GPA varies

substantially between students demonstrating lower versus higher cognitive ability. One way to

interpret this finding is that we did not find support in our data for the theory that students of

lower cognitive ability may be compensating for any cognitive deficit (in comparison to their

higher ability peers) via the exhibition of higher levels of either General Conscientiousness or a

majority of its facets.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, the current study represents the first extensive

investigation into the relationship between the facets of Conscientiousness and second-order (i.e.,

Stratum II) factors of cognitive ability. Three of our four hypotheses were supported. First,

MacCann et al.’s (2009) eight-factor structure of Conscientiousness demonstrated close fit to the

data in this collegiate sample, suggesting that this model is appropriate for characterizing

Conscientiousness beyond the high school years (to which their original study was limited).

Second, associations between Conscientiousness and Cognitive Ability differed across facets of

Conscientiousness. Two facets (Cautiousness and Perfectionism) showed non-trivial associations

across all aspects of Cognitive Ability. In contrast, Tidiness was unrelated to Cognitive Ability

and Procrastination Refrainment showed a consistently negative (though not always statistically

significant) relationship with all group factors of Cognitive Ability (i.e., procrastinators

demonstrated higher levels of cognitive ability on average). Third and contrary to our hypothesis,

relationships between Conscientiousness and Cognitive Ability were similar across all five group


factors of ability. Although Gf and Gc tended to exhibit the strongest relationships to

Conscientiousness and its facets (and Gr the weakest), these associations were modest in

magnitude across the five factors of Cognitive Ability with none exhibiting an absolute value >

.22. Fourth, as predicted the facets of Conscientiousness showed differential prediction of

collegiate GPA, with the strongest (but still modest in magnitude) demonstrated by

Industriousness and weakest by Tidiness. Of particular note was that General Conscientiousness

predicted collegiate GPA in this sample as strongly as did General Cognitive Ability.

Perseverance as a Compound Facet

Although fit statistics supported the eight-factor model of Conscientiousness, the strong

negative correlation between Perseverance and Neuroticism suggests that Perseverance may not

be wholly located within the Conscientiousness factor space. Roberts et al. (2005) refer to such

facets as “interstitial constructs” and Salgado et al. (2014) refer to them as “compound facets”.

While compound facets may describe conceptually distinct and pragmatically useful constructs,

their use in some research areas may be problematic. For example, there has been ongoing

debate as to whether broad domains versus facets of personality provide better prediction of

criteria (e.g., Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Paunonen, Rothstein, & Jackson, 1999; Salgado et al.,

2014). Because compound facets effectively “double dip” from multiple broader domains, they

may be more predictive than those broad domains due to their greater bandwidth rather than their

greater specificity (as this debate often assumes). One technique for examining whether a facet is

more strongly predictive of an outcome than a broad domain is to examine such relationships

using facet scores which have been partialled of their relationships with the related broad domain

(Salgado et al., 2014). This technique would not be valid for compound facets, however, as it

assumes any remaining variance is specific to the facet in question (vs. other domains). In terms


of the eight-factor model of Conscientiousness, our results suggest caution in using Perseverance

in an examination of the facets-versus-domains debate due to its apparent relationship to both

Conscientiousness and Neuroticism.

Procrastination, Cautiousness, and Perfectionism Associated with Higher Cognitive Ability

Of the eight Conscientiousness facets, only Procrastination Refrainment was negatively

related to cognitive ability whereas the strongest relationships were observed for Perfectionism

and Cautiousness. The common feature of these three characteristics (procrastination,

perfectionism and caution) is timing or hurriedness. One possible interpretation of our results is

that people with greater cognitive ability tend to be less hurried in their general approach to life’s

activities. This interpretation implies both positive aspects (e.g., the cautiousness involved in

checking details, delaying acting, and continuing with tasks until their product is “perfect”) and

negative ones (e.g., the tendency to procrastinate).

While the above explanation is speculative, cognitive ability has been shown to relate to

inhibitory processes (e.g., Dempster, 1991; Loo & Wener, 1971). This suggests a slower internal

pace among more intelligent people that more easily allows for interruptions or the incorporation

of new information while completing a task. This is not to imply that more intelligent people are

physically slower in their tasks, as in fact they appear to be faster at most tasks (e.g., Carroll,

1993; Jensen, 1987; Roberts & Stankov, 1999). Rather, we are suggesting that one way in which

those demonstrating higher levels of cognitive ability may differ from those exhibiting lower

levels of cognitive ability is a behavioral tendency to pace their work or other tasks at less than

their maximum potential ability. Such an option may not be available to those more limited in

their intellectual capacity as they may need to employ their full capacity when tasked. That is,

higher levels of cognitive ability may tend to facilitate the development of certain behavioral


tendencies explicative of the relationships observed in the current study (e.g., demonstrating

caution, or not considering a task or assignment complete until it is “perfect”).

A further example of the relationship between cognitive ability and personality

development is Intelligence Compensation Theory (ICT), or the idea that “Conscientiousness

acts as a coping strategy for relatively less intelligent people” (Wood & Englert, 2009). In our

study, the negative relationships observed between Procrastination Refrainment and Cognitive

Ability factors were the only ones among the eight facets of Conscientiousness that might

support this theory. That is, our results could be considered to add specificity to ICT by

suggesting that people of lower cognitive ability may compensate or enhance their overall

performance on tasks by beginning their work earlier. The significant positive relationship

between Procrastination Refrainment and collegiate GPA suggests that this mechanism may

indeed be successful. It is also important to note that the unique behavior of procrastination

refrainment among the facets of Conscientiousness seems to occur only with cognitive ability.

The general pattern of correlations of Procrastination Refrainment with other personality

dimensions is consistent with other facets of Conscientiousness. This helps to rule out ICT as an

explanation for the negative relationship observed with Cognitive Ability (i.e., Procrastination

Refrainment did behave aberrantly in relation to other constructs). We conducted a further test of

ICT in our analyses of incremental validity (Table 6) via the inclusion of interaction terms for

each facet of Conscientiousness. Interestingly, the only two significant interactions involved

Tidiness and Task Planning. That is, the positive relationship observed between general

Cognitive Ability and collegiate GPA was stronger among students who were more organized

than their peers in managing their possessions and tasks. Considering the other six facets of

Conscientiousness, our findings raise questions about the arguments underlying ICT. Further


research would be required to test the theory more thoroughly, for example including the a priori

specification of which facets of Conscientiousness ICT should be expected to impact.

Divergence of Current Findings from Previous Research

Our results are inconsistent with much of the previous evidence presented in Table 1,

which showed that several extant studies have reported negative relationships between

Conscientiousness and Cognitive Ability. We posit two possible reasons for this. The first is

related to the stakes of the testing. Four of the five studies reporting statistically significant

negative relationships greater than 0.10 administered conscientiousness and cognitive ability

tests as part of high-stakes job applications (the other did not report on testing stakes). These

results suggest that the severity of stakes in a given setting may moderate the relationship

between Conscientiousness and Cognitive Ability. The relationship may be negative when the

stakes are higher but positive when they are lower. This result would be consistent with a

mechanism where Conscientiousness affected Cognitive Ability test scores in low-stakes but not

high-stakes settings – a case where everyone exerts maximum effort on tests of cognitive ability

when the stakes are high, but only conscientious people exert maximum effort when the stakes

are low.

A second possible reason for the divergence of our findings from those of extant research

is the type of instrumentation deployed. Many of the studies shown in Table 1 utilized relatively

brief personality assessments, which may tend to emphasize one or a subset of the facets from

each of the more broadly construed “Big 5” personality factors. When instruments such as these

are deployed, they should of course be expected to relate to other phenomena in line with their

selective content. As such if they tended to be more representative of one or more facets of

Conscientiousness, any relationships observed with other measures should reflect or accentuate


expectations for those facets versus overall Conscientiousness (see the diversity of associations

displayed in Table 5). This is a long-recognized issue with forms designed as brief measures of

more broadly conceived constructs (Smith, McCarthy, & Anderson, 2000), and thus the

divergence of our findings from previous research may be taken in part as a cautionary tale about

the importance of incorporating truly comprehensive assessments of Conscientiousness (or the

limitations inherent to including only selected facets).

Future Research

It should be noted that although this study has replicated and found support for an eight-

factor model of Conscientiousness (MacCann et al., 2009) in the current sample, this model

remains only one of several in the extant literature (for a review see Kim, Poropat, & MacCann,

2015). While there may in fact exist a “true” underlying, unobserved structure of general

Conscientiousness, any empirically-derived structural model of the construct will in part be a

function of the instrumentation used to assess it. Furthermore, since our sample was comprised

of college students there may have been issues of selection resulting in a higher mean level of

Conscientiousness versus the general population. Future research should seek to compare

different instrumentation and models of Conscientiousness within both similar and more diverse

samples (ideally representative of large geographic areas or occupational fields) to move the

field toward consensus on these issues.

As mentioned above, the field would benefit from a rigorous investigation into whether

or not the level of stakes inherent to a testing condition demonstrates a significant impact on the

relationships between facets of Conscientiousness and cognitive ability. Contextual stakes are of

course only one possible explanation for the patterns found in our review of prior research, and


future experimental studies will be valuable in determining whether they are truly impactful in

this area.

The current study further suggests at least two more methodological areas for future

research. The first would involve comprehensively modeling the relationships studied herein at

the level of latent constructs rather than factor scores. Estimating such a comprehensive model

using categorical item-level data would present its own challenges given the large number of

assessment items involved and sample size thus required to stably estimate models containing so

many free parameters. However, a study able to meet those challenges, wherein associations

reported would account for both measurement error and covariances between latent constructs,

would provide a more distilled (and thus more clearly interpretable) impression of the

relationships of interest here. A second line of methodologically oriented future research should

seek to examine whether the eight-factor model of Conscientiousness, now demonstrated in both

collegiate and high school samples, exhibits structural invariance across demographic (e.g.,

gender, ethnicity) or other (e.g., low vs. high cognitive ability) subgroups of interest.

Measurement and/or predictive invariance studies along these lines would lend further support to

the interpretation of interfactor relationships across such samples as a whole.


References

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence

for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-245.

Amhauer, P., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (2001). Intelligenz-Strucktur-Test

2000 R [Test of intelligence structure 2000 R] (2nd ed.). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Beauducel, A., Liepmann, D., Felfe, J., & Nettelnstroth, W. (2007). The impact of different

measurement models for fluid and crystallized intelligence on the correlation with

personality traits. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 71-78.

Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., Wesman, A. G. (1997). Differential Aptitude Test. San Antonio,

TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Blinkhorn, S. F. (1985). Graduate and managerial assessment manual and user guide.

Dorchester, UK: Psychometric Research and Development Ltd.

Bratko, D., Butkovic, A., Vukasovic, T., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., von Stumm, S. (2012).

Cognitive ability, self-assessed intelligence and personality: Common genetic but

independent environmental aetiologies. Intelligence, 40, 91–99.

Brunner, M., Nagy, G., & Wilhelm, O. (2012). A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs.

Journal of Personality, 80(4), 796-846.

Budd, R. (1991). OPP technical manual. Letchworth, UK: Psytech International Ltd.

Budd, R. (1992). 15FQ technical manual. Letchworth, UK: Psychtech International Ltd.

Budd, R. (1993a). General, critical, and graduate test battery: The technical manual.

Letchworth, UK: Psychtech International Ltd.


Budd, R. (1993b). Manual for the technical test battery. Letchworth, UK: Psychtech

International Ltd.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. P. (1993). 16 PF Fifth Edition. Champaign, IL:

Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J. P., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Modeling general

and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other

approaches. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 219-251.

Ciarrochi, J., Heaven, P. C., & Skinner, T. (2012). Cognitive ability and health-related behaviors

during adolescence: A prospective study across five years. Intelligence, 40(4), 317-324.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2005). Priručnik: Revidirani NEO inventar ličnosti (NEO-PI- R)

I NEO petofaktorski inventar (NEO-FFI) (Manual for NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI).

Jastrebarsko, Croatia: Naklada Slap.

De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & Costa, P. T. (2009). Assessing the

universal structure of personality in early adolescence: The NEO-PI-R and NEO-PI-3 in 24

cultures. Assessment, 16(3), 301-311.

Dempster, F. N. (1991). Inhibitory processes: A neglected dimension of intelligence.

Intelligence, 15, 157-173.


DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects

of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880-896.

Djapo, N., Kolenovic-Djapo, J., Djokic, R., & Fako, I. (2011). Relationship between Cattell’s

16PF and fluid and crystallized intelligence Personality and Individual Differences, 51,

63–67.

Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Derman, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-

referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Goldberg, L R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the

lower-level facets of several five-factor personality models. In I. Merviedle, I. Deary, F.

De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe. Tillberg, the

Netherlands: Tillburg University Press.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative" description of personality": The big-five factor structure.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., &

Gough, H. G. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-

domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.

Heaven, P. C. L., Ciarrochi, J., & Vialle, W. (2007). Conscientiousness and Eysenckian

Psychoticism as predictors of school grades: A one-year longitudinal study. Personality

and Individual Differences, 42, 535-546.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Critical cutoff for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.


Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: correcting error and bias in

research findings (Vol. 2nd). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jackson, D. N. (1998). Multidimensional aptitude battery II. Port Hurnon, MI: Sigma

Assessment Systems, Inc.

Jensen, A. R. (1987). Individual differences in the Hick paradigm. In P. A. Vernon (Ed.), Speed

of information-processing and intelligence. Northwood, NJ: Ablex.

Jöreskog, K.G. & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 for Windows [Computer software].

Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.

Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical

representations of the Five-Factor Model of Personality in predicting job performance:

Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 98(6), 875-925.

Kim, L.E., Poropat, A., & MacCann, C. (in press). Conscientiousness: An examination of its

nature, predictions, assessment and enhancement. To appear in: A. A. Lipnevich, F.

Preckel, and R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Psychosocial skills and school systems in the twenty-

first century: Theory, research, and applications. Springer.

Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality

Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329-358.

Lee, I. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Calculation for the test of the difference between two

dependent correlations with one variable in common [Computer software]. Retrieved

from http://quantpsy.org

Loo, C., & Wener, C. (1971). Activity level and motor inhibition: Their relationship to

intelligence-test performance in normal children. Child Development, 42, 967-971.

http://quantpsy.org/


Luciano, M., Wainwright, M. A., Wright, M. J., & Martin, N. G. (2006). The heritability of

conscientiousness facets and their relationship to IQ and academic achievement.

Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1189-1199.

MacCann, C. (2013). Instructed faking of the HEXACO reduces facet reliability and involves

more Gc than Gf. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 828-833.

MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2013). Just as smart but not as successful: obese students obtain

lower school grades but equivalent test scores to nonobese students. International

Journal of Obesity, 37, 40-46.

MacCann, C., Duckworth, A.L., & Roberts, R.D. (2009). Empirical identification of the major

facets of Conscientiousness. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 451-458.

MacCann, C., Fogarty, G. & Roberts, R. D. (2012). Strategies for success in vocational

education: Time management is more important for part-time than full-time students.

Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 618-623.

MacCann, C., Fogarty, G. J., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2011). Coping mediates the

relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and academic achievement.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 60-70.

MacCann, C., Joseph, D., Newman, D., & Roberts, R. D. (2014). Emotional intelligence is a

second-stratum factor of intelligence: Evidence from hierarchical and bifactor models.

Emotion, 42, 358-374.

McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further intercultural comparisons. In R.

R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.). The five-factor model of personality across cultures. (pp.

105-125). New York, NY: Springer.


McGrew, K. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the

shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37, 1-1.

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2003). Demographic and personality predictors of

intelligence: A study using the Neo Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17, 79-94.

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2006). What facets of openness and conscientiousness

predict fluid intelligence score? Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 31–42.

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is conscientiousness negatively correlated

with intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1013-1022.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth–fidelity dilemma in personality measurement

for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609-626.

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five predictors of academic achievement. Journal

of Research in Personality, 35, 78–90.

Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow reasoning about the use of

broad personality measures for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

20, 389-405.

Peabody, D., & De Raad, B. (2002). The substantive nature of psycholexical personality factors:

A comparison across languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4),

983-997.

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five factor model of personality and academic

performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322-338.

Raven J. Advanced Progressive Matrices, Set II. London: H.K. Lewis; 1962.


Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1994). Manual for Raven‘s progressive matrices and

vocabulary scale. Oxford UK: Oxford Psychologies Press.

Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. 1998. Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and

Vocabulary Scales, Section 1: General overview. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt

Assessment.

Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure of

conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality

questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103-139.

Roberts, R. D., Goff, G. N., Anjoul, F., Kyllonen, P. C., Pallier, G., & Stankov, L. (2000). The

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB): Little More Than Acculturated

Learning (Gc)!?. Learning and individual differences, 12(1), 81-103.

Roberts, R. D., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2011). From general intelligence to multiple intelligences:

Meanings, models, and measures. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA

educational psychology handbook, volume 2. (pp. 33-57). Washington, DC: APA.

Roberts, R. D., & Stankov, L. (1999). Individual differences in speed of mental processing and

human cognitive abilities: Toward a taxonomic model. Learning and Individual

Differences, 11(1), 1-120.

Salgado, J. F., Moscoso, S., Sanchez, J. I., Alonso, P., Choragwicka, B., & Berges, A. (2014).

Validity of the five-factor model and their facets: The impact of performance measure

and facet residualization on the bandwidth-fidelity dilemma. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 3-30.

Salthouse, T.. A. (1993). Speed and knowledge as determinants of adult age differences in verbal

tasks. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 48, 29–36.


Salthouse, T.A. (1993b). Influence of working memory on adult age differences in matrix

reasoning. British Journal of Psychology. 84, 171–199.

Salthouse, T.A. (1993c). Speed mediation of adult age differences in cognition. Developmental

Psychology, 29, 722–738.

Salthouse, T.. A., & Babcock, R. I. (1991). Decomposing adult age differences in working

memory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 763-776.

Salthouse, T. A., Fristoe, N. E., & Rhee, S. H. (1996). How localized are age-related effects on

neuropsychological measures?. Neuropsychology, 10, 272-285.

Saucier, G., & Ostendorf, F. (1999). Hierarchical subcomponents of the Big Five personality

factors: a cross-language replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,

613-627.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel

psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.

Psychological Bulletin, 2, 262-274.

Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form

development. Psychological assessment, 12(1), 102-111.

Soubelet, A, & Salthouse, T. A. (2011). Personality-cognition relations across adulthood.

Developmental Psychology, 47, 303-310.

Stankov, L. (1997). Gf-gc quickie test battery. Sydney, Australia: E-intelligence Testing

Products.

Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological

bulletin, 87, 245-251.


von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual

curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 6, 574–588.

Tarbuk, D. (1977). Test 4/MFBT-Rjecˇnik (Subtest 4/MFBT-Vocabulary). Prirucˇnik za

psihologijsko testiranje s pomoc´u multifaktorske baterije testova (Manual for the

psychological assessment with the Multifactor test battery: form P-1). Zagreb, Croatia.

Wechsler, D. (1981). WAIS‐R manual: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1997a). WAIS‐III administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1997b). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale: Third Edition. San Antonio, TX:

Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1997c). Wechsler Memory Scale—Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological

Corporation.

Wood, P., & Englert, P. (2009). Intelligence compensation theory: A critical examination of the

negative relationship between conscientiousness and fluid and crystallised intelligence.

The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Organisational Psychology, 2, 19-29.

Woodcock, R. W., Johnson, M. B., & Mather, N. (1990). Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive

Ability (Standard and Supplemental Batteries: Examiner’s Manual). Allen, TX: DLM.

Wright, M. J., & Martin, N. G. (2004). Brisbane Adolescent Twin Study: Outline of study

methods and research projects. Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 65-78. Zachary,

R.A. (1986). Shipley Institute of Living Scale – Revised. Los Angeles, CA:

Western Psychological Services.


Ziegler, M., Danay, E., Scholmerich, F., & Buhner, M. (2010). Predicting academic success with

the big 5 rated from different points of view: Self-rated, other rated and faked. European

Journal of Personality, 24, 341–355.


Table 1 Recent Research on the Relationship of Conscientiousness and Cognitive Ability ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Study C Facet C Measure G Facet G Measure N r ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ackerman & Heggestad (1997) General C Meta-analytically General G (g) Meta-analytically 4,850 .02 derived Gf derived 1,485 -.05 Gc 401 .08 Beauducel, Liepmann, Felfe, & General C NEO-FFI (Costa & Gf Intelligence Structure 789 .05 Nettelnstroth (2007) McCrae, 1992) Gc Test 2000 R -.07 (Amthauer, Brocke, Liepmann, and Beauducel, 2001) Bratko, Butkovic, Vukasovic, Chamorro- General C NEO-FFI (Costa & General G General Aptitude Test 339 -.10 Premuzic, and von Stumm (2012) McCrae, 1989, 2005) Battery (Tarbuk, 1977) twin monozygotic pairs -.08 Dizygotic Ciarrochi, Heaven, & Skinner, T. (2012) General C Author-derived 16-item General G State-based 420 .16** scale aligned with IPIP standardized (Heaven, Ciarrochi, assessment & Vialle, 2007) Djapo, Kolenovic-Djapo, Djokic, Rule-Consc. Sixteen Personality Gf Raven’s Advanced 105 -.24* & Fako (2011) Self-Control Factors Questionnaire Gf Progressive Matrices -.21* (16PF) (Cattell, Cattell, (Raven, Raven, & & Cattell, 1993) Court, 1998) Rule-Consc. Gc Mill Hill Vocabulary 105 -.25** Self-Control Gc Scale (Raven, Court, -.16 & Raven, 1994)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Table 1 (continued) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Luciano , Wainwright, Wright, 6 facets NEO-PI-R (Form S; Gc Multidimensional 538 -.06 to .27* Martin (2006) Wright & Martin, 2004) Gv Aptitude Battery individuals (Jackson, 1998) in twin pairs MacCann (2013) General C and HEXACO (Lee & Gf, Gc Multiple measures2 185 -.13 to .05 4 facets of C Ashton, 2004) Moutafi, Furnham & Crump (2003) General C NEO-FFI (Costa & General G Graduate and Managerial 900 -.14** McCrae, 1992) Assessment: Abstract (GMA:A; Blinkhorn, 1985) Moutafi, Furnham & Crump (2006) General C NEO-FFI (Costa & Gf Graduate and Managerial 2,658 -.11*** McCrae, 1992) Assessment: Abstract (GMA:A; Blinkhorn, 1985) Moutafi, Furnham & Paltiel (2004) General C Fifteen Factor Gf The General Reasoning 201 -.26*** Questionnaire (15FQ) Test Battery (GRT1) (Budd, 1992) (Budd, 1993) Soubelet and Salthouse (2011) General C IPIP Big 5 Gf Multiple measures3 2,317 .03a (Goldberg; 1999) Gc Multiple measures4 .08a Memory Multiple measures5 .00a Speed Multiple measures6 .10a von Stumm, Hell, & General C Meta-analytically General G Meta-analytically 12 studies, N = -.04 Chamorro-Premuzic (2011) derived derived 608 - 28,471 Wood & Englert (2009) 4 facets from 15FQ (Budd, 1992), Gf General Reasoning 2 studies, N = -.17*** 15FQ; 3 facets OPP (Budd, 1991) Gc Test 2 (Budd, 1993) 546 & 1,083 -.29*** From OPP

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Table 1 (continued) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1New South Wales, Australia standardized assessment including both numerical (number, measurement, space, data, numeracy problem solving) and verbal (writing, reading, and language achievement) subtests combined to form a proxy for general intelligence (g). 2Letter Series (Gf) and Letter Counting (Gf) from the Gf/Gc Quickie Test Battery (Stankov, 1997). Syllogistic Reasoning (Gf) from the kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests (Ekstrom, French, Harman, & Derman, 1976). Analogies (Gc) from the Graduate Record examination. Vocabulary (Gc) from Ekstrom et al. (1976). General Knowledge (Gc) from an English translation of the Intelligenz-struktur-test (Amhauer, Brocke, Leipmann, & Beauducel, 2001). 3The cognitive tests were designed to assess fluid intelligence (Gf) with tests of reasoning and spatial visualization, crystallized intelligence (Gc) with tests of vocabulary, episodic memory with verbal memory tests, and perceptual speed with substitution and comparison tests. Tests of Gf included: Ravens Matrices (Raven, 1962); Shipley Abstraction (Zachary, 1986); Letter Sets (Ekstrom, French, Harman, Dermen, 1976); Spatial Relations (Bennett, Seashore & Wesman, 1997); Paper Folding (Ekstrom et al, 1976); Form Boards (Ekstrom et al, 1976). 4WAIS Vocabulary (Wechsler, 1997a); Picture Vocabulary (Woodcock, Johnson, & Mather 1990); Antonym Vocabulary (Salthouse, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c); Synonym Vocabulary (Salthouse, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c). 5 Logical Memory (Wechsler, 1997c); Free Recall (Wechsler, 1997c); Paired Associates (Salthouse, Fristo, & Rhee, 1996). 6Digit Symbol (Wechsler, 1997b); Letter Comparison (Salthouse & Babcock, 1991); Pattern Comparison (Salthouse & Babcock, 1991); Digit Symbol test in WAIS-R (Wechsler, 1981); WAIS-III (Wechsler, 1997a). aFor three distinct age groups, Soubelet and Salthouse (2011) reported mulitple R2 values for the relationship between Conscientiousness and each intelligence factor after controlling for the other four major personality factors. We calculated the square root of these values (i.e. multiple R) within each intelligence factor and report their respective averages across all age groups (weighted to account for differences in sample size across age groups). This was done to give an approximate indication of the partial correlation between conscientiousness and each intelligence factor. Note. Consc. = Consciousness. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.


Table 2 15 Subtests to Assess the Five Broad Cognitive Ability Dimensions

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Assessment Factor Items Format Description ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Analogies Gc 30 Multiple Each item presented a related pair of words in capital letters followed by choice five pairs of words in lowercase letters. The task for respondents was to select the lowercased pair that best expressed a relationship similar to that expressed in the capitalized pair. Calendar Test Gf 20 Multiple A calendar was presented and respondents were required to answer items choice based on established rules specific to different calendar dates. Cube Comparisons Gv 42 Multiple Each item presented two drawings of a cube, where each side of a cube choice had a different design, number, or letter represented. Respondents compared the cubes and indicated whether the drawings were of the same or different cubes. Figure Classification Gf 160 User A set of three geometrical figures was presented in groups of 2 or 3 that response were alike with respect to a specific rule. Below the figures were 8 geometrical figures where the respondent assigned each of the 8 figures to one of the groups according to the established rule. Hidden Patterns Gv 200 User A geometric pattern was presented where a given configuration of a figure response was embedded within the pattern. The task for respondents was to identify whether or not the given figure occurred within a pattern. Letter Sets Gf 15 Multiple Each item presented five sets of four letters each; four of the sets of letters choice were alike. The task was for respondents to find the rule which related ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Table 2 (continued) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ four of the sets and indicate which one of the sets did not fit the rule. Mathematics Gq 15 Multiple Mathematical word problems were presented which required algebraic Aptitude choice concepts to be solved. Necessary Gq 15 Multiple Mathematical word problems were presented and the task was for Mathematic choice respondents to determine what numerical operations were required to Operations solve the problems without actually carrying out the computations. Opposites Gr 8 User A target word was presented and respondents were asked to write up to six response antonyms for each word. Sentence Gc 30 Multiple Each item presented an incomplete sentence and beneath this sentence, Completion choice four words or phrases were listed. The task for respondents was to select the one word or phrase that best completed the sentence. Subtraction and Gq 60 User Alternate items were presented where respondents were asked to either Multiplication response subtract 2-digit numbers from 2-digit numbers or multiply 2-digit numbers by single-digit numbers. Surface Gv 60 User This test required respondents to visualize how a piece of paper could be Development response folded to form a kind of object. Drawings were presented of solid forms that were made with paper. Accompanying each drawing was a diagram showing how the paper might be cut and folded in order to create the solid form. One part of the diagram was marked with dotted lines or numbered edges to correspond to the same area in the drawing (marked by letters) and respondents were asked to indicate which lettered edges in the drawing corresponded to the numbered edges or dotted lines in the diagram. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Table 2 (continued) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Vocabulary Gc 36 Multiple This tests respondents’ knowledge of word meanings. A target word was choice presented and four word choices were given where respondents were asked to indicate which word had the same meaning or nearly the same meaning as the target word. Word Beginnings Gr 2 User A set of letters was presented (e.g., “re”) and respondents were asked to response write as many words as possible that began with the given letter. Word Endings Gr 2 User A set of letters was presented (e.g., “ing”) and respondents were asked to response write as many words as possible that ended with the given letter. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Note. Crystallized Ability (Gc), Fluid Ability (Gf), Quantitative Reasoning (Gq), Retrieval Ability (Gr), and Visual-Spatial Ability (Gv). Subtests come from the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests (Ekstrom, French, Harman, & Dermen, 1976) or retired test items from various operational tests developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS, Princeton).


Table 3 Standardized Factor Loadings From One-Factor and Eight-Factor CFA in the Current Sample,

and Eight-Factor CFA Loadings as Reported in MacCann et al. (2009)

______________________________________________________________________________ Itema 1-factor 8-factor 8-fac (MacCann) ______________________________________________________________________________ Factor 1: Industriousness

Q1: I accomplish a lot of work .67 .72 .84 Q6: I am always prepared .69 .74 .83 Q35: I do just enough work to get by (R) .58 .62 .84 Q36: I do more than what's expected of me .61 .66 .75 Q39: I do too little work (R) .62 .66 .76 Q72: I make an effort .66 .71 .71 Q87: I push myself very hard to succeed .71 .77 .87 Q88: I put little time and effort into my work (R) .58 .62 .82 Q114: I work hard .69 .75 .88 Q115: I work too much .26 .29 .52 Factor 2: Perfectionism

Q28: I continue until everything is perfect .62 .79 .92 Q29: I demand perfection in others .08 .15 .59 Q30: I demand quality .36 .48 .74 Q31: I detect mistakes .30 .41 .57 Q53: I go straight for the goal .61 .77 .82 Q106: I try to outdo others .07 .17 .37 ______________________________________________________________________________


Table 3 (continued) ______________________________________________________________________________ Q108: I want every detail taken care of .52 .66 .78 Q110: I want to be in charge .18 .29 .47 Q111: I want to be the very best .45 .58 .52 Factor 3. Tidiness

Q12: I am not bothered by disorder (R) .25 .34 .52 Q13: I am not bothered by messy people (R) .18 .26 .51 Q59: I leave a mess in my room (R) .41 .56 .80 Q60: I leave my belongings around (R) .35 .48 .85 Q63: I like to organize things .67 .86 .82 Q67: I like to tidy up .47 .60 .68 Q69: I love order and regularity .51 .64 .73 Q71: I make a mess of things (R) .56 .72 .74 Q79: I often forget to put things back in place (R) .42 .56 .69 Factor 4. Procrastination Refrainment

Q9: I am easily distracted (R) .45 .58 .73 Q51: I get to work at once .52 .64 .81 Q55: I have difficulty starting tasks (R) .56 .71 .73 Q65: I like to take it easy (R) .12 .18 .38 Q89: I put off unpleasant tasks (R) .41 .54 .67 Q97: I start tasks right away .53 .66 .78 Q112: I waste my time (R) .62 .78 .79 ______________________________________________________________________________


Table 3 (continued) ______________________________________________________________________________ Factor 5. Control

Q2: I act impulsively when bothered (R) .33 .54 .50 Q3: I act without planning (R) .53 .78 .84 Q34: I do crazy things (R) .20 .35 .46 Q40: I do unexpected things (R) - - .52 Q70: I make a fool of myself (R) .41 .62 .56 Q76: I make rash decisions (R) .26 .41 .68 Q93: I resist authority (R) .37 .55 .50 Q94: I rush into things (R) .41 .65 .76 Factor 6. Caution

Q15: I avoid mistakes .35 .41 .41 Q18: I behave properly .52 .60 .56 Q25: I choose my words with care .48 .56 .58 Q68: I look at the facts .46 .54 .54 Q73: I make careful choices .62 .72 .78 Q103: I think ahead .68 .79 .82 Q104: I think before I speak .36 .42 .63 Factor 7. Task Planning

Q4: I am a goal-oriented person .68 .74 .75 Q37: I do things according to a plan .68 .75 .80 Q46: I follow a schedule .62 .69 .75 ______________________________________________________________________________


Table 3 (continued) ______________________________________________________________________________ Q47: I follow directions .55 .60 .67 Q64: I like to plan ahead .62 .69 .78 Q75: I make plans and stick to them .58 .64 .76 Q98: I stick to my chosen path .47 .53 .73 Q99: I stick with what I decide to do .60 .65 .66 Q113: I work according to a routine .53 .59 .76 Factor 8. Perseverance Q8: I am easily discouraged (R) .43 .52 .62 Q16: I avoid responsibilities (R) .60 .70 .64 Q49: I forget to do things (R) .50 .60 .80 Q52: I give up easily (R) .52 .62 .71 Q74: I make careless mistakes (R) .47 .58 .65 Q90: I quickly lose interest in the tasks I start (R) .56 .68 .76 Q91: I react slowly (R) .27 .31 .50 Q92: I remain calm under pressure - - .28 Q116: My interests change quickly (R) .31 .39 .61 ______________________________________________________________________________ Note. Identical item text was presented to subjects in both studies, although MacCann (2009) included 2 items not presented in the current study (Q40, Q92). All CFA models run using diagonally weighted least squares estimation. Salient loadings (≥ .30) are in bold text. a(R) = Item was reverse-keyed.


Table 4 Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) and Intercorrelations of Conscientiousness Facet Scores ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Facet score intercorrelations _____________________________________________________________________ Conscientiousness facet α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Industriousness .85 2. Perfectionism .76 .49 3. Tidiness .79 .42 .25 4. Procrastination refrainment .76 .55 .22 .45 5. Control .74 .33 -.02NS .40 .46 6. Cautiousness .74 .60 .49 .36 .34 .41 7. Task planning .84 .68 .54 .48 .44 .34 .64 8. Perseverance .75 .57 .21 .44 .60 .53 .44 .43 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Note. N = 722. Intercorrelations are Pearson product moment correlations between normalized T scores (M = 50, SD = 10). NS = Not statistically significant at p < .01.


Table 5 Intercorrelations between Facets of Conscientiousness and both Collegiate Grade Point Average and Cognitive Ability

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Correlations with Conscientiousness Facets (all M = 50, SD = 10)

_____________________________________________________________________ Measure n M SD 1a, d, e 2 c, e 3 c, e 4 c, d 5 d 6 e 7 c, e 8 c, d, e [9] ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ University GPAb 426 3.16 0.54 .28** .16** .08 .22** .23** .13** .16** .19** .26** Cognitive Ability General 699 0.01 0.95 .10** .14** -.02 -.14** .12** .22** .07 .08* .09* Crystallized 706 0.00 0.93 .11** .13** -.03 -.12** .13** .22** .06 .08* .09* Quantitative 706 0.00 0.77 .08* .14** .00 -.05 .05 .14** .06 .07 .08* Fluid 706 0.00 0.90 .10* .10** .02 -.13** .12** .19** .09* .10* .10** Visual 706 0.00 1.00 .05 .13** -.01 -.08* .06 .15** .07 .05 .07 Retrieval 699 0.01 0.87 .07 .12** -.04 -.12** .03 .12** .04 .00 .03 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Table 5 (continued) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Personality Openness 722 3.57 0.51 .40** .38** .03 .11** .01 .47** .30** .31** .34** Neuroticism 722 2.54 0.51 -.39** -.11** -.19** -.39** -.40** -.37** -.22** -.65** -.49**

Conscientiousness 722 3.42 0.44 .81** .54** .68** .73** .62** .75** .79** .75** 1.00 Extraversion 722 3.26 0.46 .16** .27** -.07 -.07 -.39** .05 .11** .12** .02 Agreeableness 722 3.49 0.31 .38** .00 .21** .12** .31** .39** .30** .28** .35** ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Note. Correlations are Pearson product moment correlations. *p < .05, **p < .01. aFacets of Conscientiousness: 1. Industriousness, 2. Perfectionism, 3. Tidiness, 4. Procrastination Refrainment, 5. Control, 6. Cautiousness, 7. Task Planning, 8. Perseverance, [9]. General Conscientiousness. bGPA = Grade Point Average. Sample restricted to students attending a 4-year university. cThe facet’s correlation with GPA differs significantly from the correlation between Industriousness and GPA (Steiger’s z-test, p < .05). dThe facet’s correlation with GPA differs significantly from the correlation between Tidiness and GPA (Steiger’s z-test, p < .05). eThe facet’s correlation with GPA differs significantly from the correlation between General Conscientiousness and GPA (Steiger’s z-test, p < .05).


Table 6

Stepwise Regression Analyses Predicting Collegiate GPA (N = 417)

Industriousness Perfectionism

Variable β, Step 1 β, Step 2 β, Step 3 β, Step 1 β, Step 2 β, Step 3

General Cognitive Ability (G) .24** .23** .24** .24** .23** .22**

Conscientiousness facet (Cf) .27** .24** .14** .12**

G x Cf .08 .06

R2 .06 .13 .14 .06 .08 .08

ΔR2 .07 .01 .02


Table 6 (continued)

Conscientiousness facet (Cf) .22** .22** .10* .09

G x Cf .01 .07

R2 .06 .11 .11 .06 .07 .07

ΔR2 .05 .00 .01


Table 6 (continued)

All Conscientiousness Facets

General Cognitive Ability .24** .24**

Industriousness .28**

Perfectionism .11

Tidiness -.06

Procrastination Refrainment .10

Control .22**

Cautiousness -.17**

Task Planning -.07

Perseverance -.04

R2 .06 .18

ΔR2 .12

F for ΔR2 26.35** 7.55**

Note: General Cognitive Ability and each Conscientiousness facet were centered at their means.

*p < .05. **p < .01.


Appendix A. Correlations between All Study Variables

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01. aN = 417. bN = 419. cN = 699. dN = 426.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 N 722 722 722 722 722 722 722 426 699 706 706 706 706 706 699 722 722 722 722 Conscientiousness Facets

1 Industriousness .49** .42** .55** .33** .60** .68** .57** .28** .10** .11** .08* .10* .05 .07 .40** -.39** .81** .16** .38**

2 Perfectionism .25** .22** -.02 .49** .54** .21** .17** .14** .13** .14** .10** .13** .12** .38** -.11** .54** .27** .00 3 Tidiness .45** .40** .36** .48** .44** .08 -.02 -.03 .00 .02 -.01 -.04 .03 -.19** .68** -.07 .21**

4 Procrastination Refrainment .46** .34** .44** .60** .21** -.14** -.12** -.05 -.13** -.08* -.12** .11** -.39** .73** -.07 .12**

5 Control .41** .34** .53** .24** .12** .13** .05 .12** .06 .03 .01 -.40** .62** -.39** .31**

6 Cautiousness .64** .44** .14** .22** .22** .14** .19** .15** .12** .47** -.37** .75** .05 .39**

7 Task Planning .43** .16** .07 .06 .06 .09* .07 .04 .30** -.22** .79** .11** .30**

8 Perseverance .19** .08* .08* .07 .10* .05 .00 .31** -.65** .75** .12** .28**

9 University GPA .24** a .23** b .18** b .22** b .14** b .20** a .06 d -.08 d .26** d -.11* d .14** d

Cognitive Ability 10 General .86** c .66** c .91** c .70** c .68** c .36** c -.16** c .09* c -.03 c .23** c

11 Crystallized .45** .68** .48** .56** c .41** -.14** .09* -.04 .25**

12 Quantitative .57** .46** .40** c .15** -.13** .08* -.04 .01 13 Fluid .62**

facets of conscientiousness and their differential relationships...

Documents